Thanks for the kind words Amanda.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that. I've read enough of your writing now to know that you are thoughtful and considerate and aware and wouldn't suggest such a thing.

The reason I said that your analogy failed was because it reversed the positions of the two participants, i.e. the drunken 'victim' and the 'innocent' committer of the harm"

For your analogy with a drink driving incident to work then the 'innocent victim' i.e. the person hit by the car, would have to be the drunken one and the driver would have to be the 'innocernt' committer of the harm. This then becomes rightly analagous with the sexual assault scenario.

As it stands, your analogy presents an opposite situation to that with which you are comparing it.

I have no problem with your view that we need to take individual responsibility for our actions and the impact those actions may have on or cause for others. I fully agree with that stance.

There is, however, another issue with the 'victim' in this scenario having to take responsibility for their part in bringing about the harm they suffer. It relates to the suggestion of choice.

It is certainly reasonable to expect an adult not to drink alcohol and then drive a motor vehicle. Indeed, it is contrary to the law and its potential harmful effects are well known.

However, is it just as reasonable to expect an adult not to drink alcohol in case they get knocked over when crossing the road? That, you see, is what is analagous with the woman having a night out and becoming drunk. Should she abstain from alcohol because she may be the victim of sexual assault?

Surely, that argument is an echo of those which suggest that a female should not wear suggestive clothing in public or go out at night on her own?

I note that some of your respondents have fallen into this trap and either modify their behaviour to minimise or avoid the bad behaviour of others or suggest that to do so is appropriate.

I know that, on the surface, that sounds perfectly reasonable. In reality, however, it is just another somewhat hidden and conditoned way of blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator and focusing on symptom rather than cause.

I hope that I've made these points more clearly for although I beleive that I well understand the positive motivation that underpins your article, in its present form, it may actually reinforce that which you wouldn't wish.

Yes, I'm an idealist and, yes, I'm particular about language and how it is used. I make no apology for that, only for any discomfort it may cause for some.

I long for a society in which all people, regardless of sex or gender, providing they do no harm to others, can feel free and comfortable to wear what they wish, move about as and when they please, and be judged, (if they must be), on who they are, as opposed to comparison to stereotypes, fallacies, and/or entrenched but false characterisations.

Having, I hope, put my intentions into clearer perspective, may I just say that I enjoy your articles and have not intended to be negatively critical of you, your views or your writing. I'm just a kid from the Yorkshire slums who cannot avoid an inherent need to highlight even small issues that may contribute to inequity in our society and the great harm it does to so many, not least to women. ☮️☮️☮️